Some reflections from Bill Whittle.
[Monday-morning update]
It’s long past time to rethink NASA:
Unrealistically, the NRC committee recommends a 5 percent annual increase in NASA’s budget to carry out its recommendations, which are to spend billions for many decades with the eventual result of putting a few civil servants on Mars. My assessment, as a space enthusiast and a taxpayer? As Senator William Proxmire once famously quipped, on the topic of funding for space colonies: “I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy.” I don’t know what the future of human spaceflight is, but I do know that the NRC’s recommendations are not it.
Read the whole thing. It was written by someone who knows what he’s talking about, one of the great minds of our age.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Some of the comments over there are amusing, albeit predictable.
[Update a few minutes later]
Should we go back to the moon? I participate in a debate on the topic, over at US News. I have to say that Etzioni’s remarks are certainly ignorant. And you’ll be shocked to discover that Bob Zubrin wants to go to Mars.
[Update mid morning]
I have a roundup of my and others’ apollo anniversary pieces over at Ricochet. Plus, hey moon! We’re coming back soon.
[Late-afternoon update]
I’m tied with Peter over there for thumbs up, if you want to go vote. Also, Bob is getting lots of negative ratings, but nothing like Etzioni.
[Bumped]
[Late evening update]
I assume that, thanks to my readers, I’m Number One!
“I just have to say pretty bluntly here, we’ve been there before” – Obama selling the apogee.
And in a sense, he was right. The US sent men to the moon just to prove they could. Apollo 12 was an insurance plan in case Apollo 11 failed. By Apollo 13, nobody cared until the oxygen tank blew. And if the US returned to the moon today with the only objective being to once again prove they could, yawn.
If on the other hand there was an overriding purpose – to produce propellant in support of further exploration and colonization – then people would take an interest again.
No-one cares, and rightfully so. Their lives will not be improved by boots on Mars. It’d be nice if the minority who do care would pony up their own cash and do it themselves, but so long as “that’s NASA’s job” they never will.
“It’d be nice if the minority who do care would pony up their own cash and do it themselves, but so long as “that’s NASA’s job” they never will.”
Except for the fact that they already are.
Big talk is not the same as big money.
Lives WILL BE improved by boots on mars [unless we continue to accept the marxist argument] it’s absolutely immoral not to. Poverty is immoral when there is an alternative.
Mars gets value from boots on the ground that can then claim it and add it to humanities wealth. Wealth that is best put into the hands of a multitude of investors looking after their own interests. The more people involved in trade the more wealth is generated. This is all massless wealth. Nothing needs to be imported to earth at great cost. It’s just data.
That is true but the wealth on Mars will mainly benefit Martians. It will also benefit us back on Earth but not as directly. Still, something is better than nothing.
Once there is a chance to strike it rich, then space will be opened up. The risks involved in hooking up your Conestoga to a team of oxen and heading west were probably comparable to what it will be when the vein of unobtainium is discovered in the asteroid belt. Maybe it will a 2nd wave of ’49ers only it will be 2049.
Columbus and Magellan had money in mind when heading out, and I am sure that is what will propel the next apogee not some gov’t wonk.
Exactly, and that is not going to happen as long as NASA keeps assimilating them as government contractors, like is has been doing so far.
Yes, like what will happen to Bigelow when they start taking NASA contracts right?
The overall space segment is not very large in terms of money. People annually spend more money with video games in the US than NASA gets as a budget. That is one of the big problems. Plus it is hardly surprising that a lot of people try to get money from NASA considering the US spends more in space than the rest of the world combined. The DoD spends even more money than NASA so it is not surprising when Elon Musk goes to great lengths to overturn the ULA block buy either. The fact is the rest of the market is still a pittance in terms of money to be had.
Stopped being blinded by unobtainium. No movement of mass is required for trade and wealth building. You are absolutely right that profit will open up space and we could be doing that today rather than tomorrow. It’s all mindset because the wealth is already there.
There is no wealth there. There is, however, potential wealth. It will only become wealth when people extract it.
Actually it doesn’t have to be extracted before it becomes wealth. As soon as you own it, either the land/rock/mineral rights the wealth is there. It would only increase with extraction.
Where is this wealth? In a response above you say there is wealth on Mars…I am not sure if you are serious or not. If you are…then all of North Africa is loaded with wealth too. I thought nobody lived in or used the Saharan wastes because there was nothing there. I guess Niger and Chad are hording their wealth.
Oh, he’s quite serious. Quite wrong, also, but serious.
Rand, On this we agree 🙂
I don’t think Ken is completely wrong. He’s just missing a key step: someone yelling “thar’s gold in them thar hills!” That is, a reason besides colonization for its own sake. Otherwise,his target market is already tied up in The World.
Rand, since you are one of the “great minds” of our age, then I am assuming you are going to support and promote the ASTEROID ACT?
Not only a great mind, but enough humility for five, maybe six people, easily. 🙂
I like Chiao’s geopolitical point and I think that is what is needed from a government position. Appealing to government’s prestige and responsibilities is a good way to sell government a program. It is great that we do have a government run space program but a government run space program and a vibrant new economy in space should not be mutually exclusive.
Diamandis brings up some good points about how we need a strategy that can survive more than one administration and the need for a more entrepreneurial approach but he didn’t close the case in terms of the Moon or human spaceflight in general. I guess maybe he didn’t feel the need because he views it as inevitable? And it looks like he has been reading some of Zubrin’s books.
Zubrin makes a decent case for Mars but not that we shouldn’t go to the Moon. In light of so many options that use lunar resources to get to Mars, I think he needs to address the alternatives. He also uses the cliche of bashing the military’s budget in relation to NASA’s like there are no other or more appropriate government expenditures to use for comparison.
The biggest cliche came from Etzioni who thinks, although it is framed as world opinion, that we should spend what little money NASA gets on poor people and studying the ocean. Two worthy causes but why do they have to be in conflict with NASA? Judging by his last paragraph, he views sending people into space as condemning people on Earth to live a life of misery. We waste more government money on bonuses for government workers and corruption of the social welfare programs than we spend on NASA. Gutting NASA would only lead to more bonuses and more corruption without any of the problems being solved that he claims are more important than human spaceflight.
Rand did the best job of selling the private sector both the commercial and non-commercial sides. He gave a lot of good examples that were not just participating in a contest he is running. Both Rand and Chiao point out that lunar development will help us get to Mars. What I didn’t care for was this, “For instance, a large radiotelescope on the far side of the moon would be able to see deep into the universe, without interference from all of the electronic noise coming from Earth.” But what about all of the lunar development? The far side of the Moon is the best place for development to avoid offending the sensibilities of the Etzionis of the world.
In the end, I voted for Rand and Chiao because I think they are both on target but they come at the problem from different perspectives. Government is needed is space and the power of government comes from a vibrant private sector.
Well said, Wodun.
Bob Clark
You’ve changed my position on a space guard from positive to negative with this that I agree with…
often suffer from inattention and low priorities
Consider this a feature, not a bug.
Okay, you’re going to have to expand on that. As I see it, the fact the Air Force has to expend resources keeping track of satellite debris is nonsensical. It is nonsensical to the Air Force, too, so they give it low priority. It takes personnel and resources away from focusing on national defense. If the Air Force didn’t have to deal with it – if it was part of the USSG instead – then the transfer of responsibility could be sold to the public as a “defense cut”. There is so much win in the USSG idea, it almost makes too much sense to ever happen.
Great article Rand in National Review. Insightful as well as well-written. Many space advocates want us to continue the Apollo approach. But during Apollo we were spending 5% of the federal budget on NASA. Now NASA is getting 0.5%. If NASA were to be funded to the same extent as during the Apollo years it would be getting $180 billion per year. That’s not going to happen.
But the key fact is we already have a proven solution, the commercial space approach. NASA’s commercial cargo program was able to develop both launchers and space capsules at 1/10th the cost of what would have been needed using the usual fully government funded approach. That’s 4 separate systems able to show a 90% cost reduction.
Just this week the GAO released a report that NASA can not afford to fly the SLS at current funding levels. Imagine being able to do 10 times as much at the same level of funding. The commercial space approach makes that possible.
Bob Clark